Koivisto v. Warden ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 TAUNO A. KOIVISTO, 7 Case No. 20-cv-02281-RS (PR) Petitioner, 8 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 WARDEN, 10 Respondent. 11 12 13 This federal action was filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, that is, as a 14 challenge to the lawfulness or duration of petitioner’s incarceration. A review of the 15 record, however, shows that petitioner sets forth claims against state actors regarding the 16 conditions of confinement — specifically, property claims — rather than challenging the 17 lawfulness or duration of his confinement. Therefore, if petitioner prevails here it will not 18 affect the length of his incarceration. This means that his claim is not the proper subject of 19 a habeas action, but must be brought as a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 20 Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (habeas corpus action proper mechanism 21 for challenging “legality or duration” of confinement; civil rights action proper method for 22 challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-892 & n.1 23 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to terms 24 and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint). 25 In an appropriate case a habeas petition may be construed as a section 1983 26 complaint. Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). Although the Court may 27 construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action, it is not required to do so. Since the time 1 || instance, the filing fee for a habeas petition is five dollars; for civil rights cases, however, 2 || the fee is now $400 ($350 if pauper status is granted) and under the Prisoner Litigation 3 || Reform Act the prisoner is required to pay it, even if granted in forma pauperis status, by 4 || way of deductions from income to the prisoner’s trust account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). 5 || A prisoner who might be willing to file a habeas petition for which he or she would not 6 || have to pay a filing fee might feel otherwise about a civil rights complaint for which the 7 || $400 fee would be deducted from income to his or her prisoner account. Also, a civil 8 || rights complaint which is dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim 9 || would count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which is not true for habeas cases. 10 In view of these potential pitfalls for petitioner if the Court were to construe the 11 || petition as a civil rights complaint, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner 2 filing a civil rights action if he wishes to do so in light of the above. 13 A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of S 14 || reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 3 15 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district A 16 || court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 17 || Petitioner may seek a certificate of appealability from the Court of Appeals. 18 Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (Dkt. No. 2.) The 19 || Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of respondent, and close 20 || the file. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: April_21, 2020 28 TAA ohm 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL . CASE No. 20-cv-02281-RS